pylon500

We need an Aussie version with the 'groundy' sitting on a beach chair with a stubbie can of coke in one hand, and a finger on the other hand pointing down the taxiway as if to so 'Bugger off that way'

Unfortunately this is true, but don't feel bad, if any of the 4.5 million people in Sydney decide to take up recreational flying, their nearest ultralight field is 'The Oaks' outside of Camden, at least an hours drive from the city centre. In fact people in Sydney that want to fly GA have to drive a half hour to get to Bankstown. I was a shareholder in an aviation company at Bankstown, built my own ultralight there, and had to truck it out to 'The Oaks' to test fly it. It's getting to be that we're lucking to have as many airports as we do, just a pity we spend more time driving to them than we do flying once we get there. That's why I moved next to an airport.

Flying from Taree, I have never had problems flying into Port Macquarie as it is not controlled airspace. Operations into controlled airspace require more training, higher onboard equipment levels and limited scope for flight variation, you are controlled. This all goes to add more cost to flying which is not always in the interest of recreational flying. These controlled airports are actually being well utilised when you think about it, someone can go and learn 'how to fly' recreationally at a place possibly closer to home, they just need to go elsewhere once they're on their own. It is always possible to utilise controlled airports/airspace, but you do need to work up to a GA license. GA PPL pilots that come over to recreational flying can still use their privileges in a recreational aircraft providing it is equipped with the right gear. Since the inception of Ultralight flying, there has always been the desire to increase weights, performance, range and accessibility, and there has been a gradual change in this direction, but with it has come increased cost and complexity. The feeling now (as I perceive it) is that we have gone far enough, and that to go any further will have us becoming a copy of GA with all the same costs and regulations that go with it. Lets keep flying fun...

It is correct to assume that a majority of the noise actually comes from the propellor. With the torque available from an electric motor, it will be possible to start using broader chord, slower turning props to cut down noise. Another point to consider is that the engine in the E-Gull is probably bolted directly to the airframe, and all the multiple pulses of the motor are using the airframe as a giant resonating box, making it almost sound like an I/C engine.

Running my Lightwing at $140 dual wet, $110 solo. Used to be $130/$100 (in a Gazelle) until council decided to charge us $9 per landing (yes EACH) but gave me the option of paying a blanket cover of $4000 per year. Eventually negotiated down to $1000 (plus GST) per year, but under review. Now all I need to do is get them to open the grass runway for more than 5 months of the year so I'm not buying new tires every 12 months.

Wanted to see the weight variations of some of the two seat gliders I've flown, thinking that the Blanik to be the lighter of the Twin Astir and an IS-28, as it is, but was interested to note their gross weights are not as far apart as I would have thought. IS-28 = 590kg Twin Astir = 580kg Blanik = 500kg Still not sure I want to dangle along behind something that could have trouble dragging me through the back of a wave... Arthur.

Great bit of footage (and nice soundtrack), but, dragging a Twin Astir off the ground with a Foxbat was a bit of an ask. I wonder how long that lake strip was? Looks like they were only going to 1000'

The MX5 or Z4 may get you there a bit quicker and maybe a bit more fun, but the saloon will take all your gear as well! Ever been on a long trip in a small sports car? If you like the new Lycoming, why not have a look at the Morgan Cougar, speed and space, and a bit cheaper than the Brumby or Lightwing Speed. Want to make it interesting? Ask for the tail wheel version.....

Just watched the 'jet fighter Ultralight, that is so cool. I've had thoughts along this line in the past but wasn't sure how effective the ducted fan would be, there's hope yet. OK, just been to the builders website and found it's NOT a ducted fan (thought that sounded like a normal prop?) it has a pusher prop buried behind the wing, pulling air over the fuse and through the intakes. clever all the same...

Can't remember the EXACT details or date, but this has already happened at YSSY. I think it was a Jab flying down Victor One in deteriorating weather (100 feet in rain) and called to come in and land. Pretty sure they declared an emergency, which 'made things happen', but afterwards had to dismantle and truck out. Anyone out there remember?

Back in my GFA days, I remember that to be a tug pilot, you also had to have a certain number of hours as a glider pilot (at least solo I think). This may have changed over the years, but still sounds like a good policy. I do remember being towed by a pilot that did some pretty wild things that scared the $#!t out of me !!! Arthur.

As stated in the video and elsewhere, rudder is generally used to balance the adverse yaw caused by the ailerons. But consider this, when you roll into a turn, you only need hold aileron until the desired angle of bank is achieved. Once banked, the ailerons come back close to central (varies with aircraft), this means you only needed the rudder to co-ordinate while rolling in, once rolled the rudder should also return close to centred. Here's a clue, if you find you are holding aileron out of the turn because the aircraft feels like it wants to roll in further, you're probably still holding a bit of rudder (ball out of the turn), Another point to consider, when rolling back OUT of the turn, you will often need more rudder to co-ordinate than you used to go in. This is generally because while in the turn you are holding a bit of back stick, which gives a higher angle of attack, which exaggerates the adverse yaw when rolling out. To roll out, I tend to teach leading with rudder (once again varies with aircraft) followed by applying aileron and lowering the nose at the same time. 'Rolling on a point' is a good exercise, difficult to perfect (practice etc) and will show that you need to vary rudder inputs to achieve a balanced roll, usually a strong input to begin reversing a roll but easing off as the aircraft comes past level. Other rudder things to watch would be variations of amount of rudder needed depending on power setting at the time. At full power and in climb, you will need to be holding a bit of rudder to keep the ball central, if you do a turn while climbing it may be a case of not applying rudder in the direction of the turn, but more an easing OFF of the power rudder to allow the turn. ie; If flying a Jab or 912 powered tractor (pulling, not pushing) aircraft, you will be holding a bit of right rudder to stay straight. If you then go into a typical LEFT circuit turn, you may only need to ease off the right rudder while rolling to stay balanced. Just remember when you get to the base turn with reduced power (idle if you're with me!) then you will need left rudder to co-ordinate. Arthur.

I get the impression the rudder on the J230 has sufficient authority with the longer tail moment, all it needs now is rudder pedals tall enough to exert enough leverage to move it, and the nosewheel. Maybe independent brakes would help too? While we're at it, how about an elevator big enough, and with enough throw to handle full flap when two up in the J230? (Lights blue touch paper, and runs away!)

Sorry Ozzie, but a few corrections; The original BD-5 was designed to be powered by a 60hp Hirth two cylinder two stroke, (a few flew like that) which was then replaced with a Zenoah three cylider two stroke around 75hp. The story is that the motor companies would not sell him the engines for liability reasons (this was the middle of the 70's with everybody suing everybody). Hardly any of the kits received their power trains, and most never got finished. Some people experimented and fitted Honda auto engines, made it heavier but the 100hp sure helped. A few managed to get VW engines in there, one even just bolted a VW to the nose, Bottom right of page 75. As for the jets, nearly a dozen have been finished and flown over the years (a few have crashed). A jet powered version was even built here in Australia by one of our own AUF members, before selling it back to the States. There are even a few turbo-prop versions out there. Lots of info here. As for the crashed on above, there is some great footage of it (and another) flying around Serpentine in WA on Arthur.

Still brave to do even if planned, only take a bit of tangled clothing to pull him into the prop!

I dare him to look 'UP' while he's doing that. (what happened to the BARF icon?) Arthur.

Reading the post from the beginning, I was getting the impression Jabiru was trying to correct a crosswind handling problem and wanting better rudder authority. But as I read on I find it's more to do with low speed directional stability. Either way, the answer is more more vertical surface area, BUT, having more fixed area will lesson control authority as mention by SPIN. One thinks the better correction would have been to produce a bigger rudder, and retro out to owners on the same swap deal (they could keep all the old rudders for the 160's). A suggested correction below... Arthur.

Can confirm that 19-4507 is still for sale, presently de-rigged, and hiding in my hangar. Arthur.

Interesting that someone would discuss with owners, read the pilot handbook, be aware of the aircraft's habits, then buy one and complain about it. Anyway, of the six Sapphires I've flown, I've always known of this handling characteristic and flown accordingly. There have been a few Sapphires modified by adding an anti-servo tab system to them. Not a problem on a 10 or 19, I just guess owners of 25's have to decide for themselves. :csm: Should be interesting to see another Opal flying again. ps; Titan Tornados have an anti-servo tab system.

Our club had a policy of exchanging our 582 at 500 hours (before the 300 TBO intro). Most were changed still running, but we did get the odd one that died before 500... We then went to 912's because of the following comparisons; 582:- $5000 replacement, 300 TBO, 17Lts per hour training (Lightwing). 912:-$17000 replacement, now 2000 TBO at 14Lts per hour. The net result is that in 2000 hours of operation, you will buy 6x 582's ($30K) and use more fuel and oil or just one 912. (These are quick rough figures..) Arthur.

Two things, the interference between the wing and fuselage would cause a fair bit of drag, and if you study the 'Custer Channel Wing' you will see he derived extra lift not so much from the airflow through the channel, but the pressure difference outside the curved surface trying to get to the low pressure area within, thus causing lift. Your inverted channel will do just that, lift inverted! (downwards that is). Now, if you put the wing on the bottom......... Arthur.

This reminds me of a glider checkride I had many years back that included spin recovery. With the instructor in the back of the Blanik, we had released tow, flown straight and level while varying speed, then flown varying bank turns at a common speed followed by a common bank and varying speeds. We then slowed to a stall, recovered into a turn to stall into an incipient spin/wing drop to the right, whereupon the instructor called for a full one turn spin and recovery to the left. As the speed was washing off I looked for a reference point to recover and pulled the stick back and applied full left rudder. The wing and nose began to drop, the canopy view filled with ground as the Blanik rolled over on it's back to begin spinning. Quickly, there was an odd 'Woosh' as the nose rotated at the ground then suddenly pitched up to the horizon? A glance at the ASI showed about 20kts (normal) when the glider rolled over on it's back again. At this point the instructor yelled "Hold it IN", which I did as the windscreen filled with ground again, but within two seconds the nose was on the horizon again. As the Blanik rolled over for a third time I initiated recovery imputs just as the instructor was calling for same from the back seat. The recovery went up near 90kts just as I was considering reaching for the brakes, but all returned to normal and we both just sat there asking each other, "What the hell was THAT?" Later on the ground after discussing with those watching from below, and piecing it all together, it was determined that in the entry to the spin, although the aircraft was decelerating rapidly, was still at around 40kts (stall is around 32kts) when I applied full spin controls, and that we had 'Snap Rolled'. As the aircraft stalled inverted and fell through, still with full back stick, this initiated another snap roll which pulled the nose up the horizon thence repeated until recovered. As per the original story, when suddenly everything was different, there was that hesitation and W.T.H. moment before getting back under positive control...... Arthur.

This is an interesting comment?! Having done about 15 years in a GR582 before going to a GR912, I found the performances to be as different as they are the same. The GR582 is lighter but with less power, so it notices changes of weight more. ie; One up, a great climb, two up, a noticeable drop in climb. A GR912 has more 'grunt' and the one up-two up climb is more similar. Having more grunt, the GR912 can drive a coarser prop and get a better cruise speed. Some other GR582 'pros' would be, very docile ground handling due to the undercarriage dynamics and a much lighter 'feel' overall. The 'cons' to a GR582 would be, the noise, the vibration and the fuel consumption. The 'pros' to the GR912 would be the smoother ride, better fuel economy and better TBO time. The 'cons' to the GR912 would be the poor glide and noticeable stall (due to weight and balance problems) and the nasty ground handling due to the undercarriage layout (it's a long story). If wanting to buy a Lightwing, one needs to decide what you want to do with it. If you want to weigh up the dollars to performance to resale ideals, then the GR912 is the better plane. But if you just want something that is a lot of fun to throw around the place, cant get in and out of smaller spaces, handle rough terrain and is generally easy to fly and land, then you want a GR582. As for the motors themselves, a 912UL is a good motor as is (but a 912ULS is better) but if going for a Rotax 582, make sure it is oil injected and avoid running Avgas. Arthur.

My only concern with full covering would be the possibility of hiding 'damage' on the airframe, more so on a composite structure. Arthur.

Finally a Government with insight. Just reading via the EAA website, of battles for airports going on in Canada. Finally a Government has sat up and helped to protect the existence of airports both major and regional, and overturned attempts to close some... Read here. How do we bring this sort of policy to the attention of our so called government for the people? Arthur.